Cyndi Lauper, Linda Perry and Toby Keith are set to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame as part of the Class of 2015. Tragic Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia and his frequent collaborator Robert Hunter will also be feted, as will country songwriter/producer Bobby Braddock and late blues star Willie Dixon.
Songwriters Hall of Fame President & CEO Linda Moran says, "Our 2015 lineup of inductees represents the rich diversity of American musical styles - Rock, Country, Blues and Pop - that have captivated the world over the past six decades. Each one of these brilliant music creators have written instantly recognisable classics, songs that are both of their time and timeless."
The Class of 2015 will be honoured at the organisation's 46th annual Induction and Awards Dinner in New York City on 18 June (15).
Gloria Estefan and Kenneth 'Babyface' Edmonds were among the artists who missed out on inductions after being shortlisted for the honour in October (14).
The Songwriters Hall of Fame features the likes of Hal David and Burt Bacharach, John Fogerty, Bob Dylan, Carole King, Paul Simon, Brian Wilson, Bruce Springsteen and Leonard Cohen.

Gloria Estefan, Cyndi Lauper and Kenneth 'babyface' Edmonds have been nominated for induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. Linda Perry and Jerry Garcia are also on the shortlist.
The inductees will be announced at a ceremony in New York next summer (15).
Established in 1969, the Songwriters Hall of Fame honours those whose work represents "a spectrum of the most beloved songs from the world’s popular music songbook"
Songwriter Johnny Mercer and publishers Abe Olman and Howie Richmond founded the organisation.
Past inductees have included Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, Eddie Holland, Lamont Dozier and Brian Holland, Desmond Child, Hal David and Burt Bacharach, John Fogerty, Bob Dylan, Isaac Hayes and David Porter, Carole King, Paul Simon, Billy Joel, Sir Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Brian Wilson, James Taylor, James Brown, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Webb, Van Morrison, Kris Kristofferson, Dolly Parton, Diane Warren and Leonard Cohen.

DreamWorks
For the bulk of every Rocky and Bullwinkle episode, moose and squirrel would engage in high concept escapades that satirized geopolitics, contemporary cinema, and the very fabrics of the human condition. With all of that to work with, there's no excuse for why the pair and their Soviet nemeses haven't gotten a decent movie adaptation. But the ingenious Mr. Peabody and his faithful boy Sherman are another story, intercut between Rocky and Bullwinkle segments to teach kids brief history lessons and toss in a nearly lethal dose of puns. Their stories and relationship were much simpler, which means that bringing their shtick to the big screen would entail a lot more invention — always risky when you're dealing with precious material.
For the most part, Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman handles the regeneration of its heroes aptly, allowing for emotionally substance in their unique father-son relationship and all the difficulties inherent therein. The story is no subtle metaphor for the difficulties surrounding gay adoption, with society decreeing that a dog, no matter how hyper-intelligent, cannot be a suitable father. The central plot has Peabody hosting a party for a disapproving child services agent and the parents of a young girl with whom 7-year-old Sherman had a schoolyard spat, all in order to prove himself a suitable dad. Of course, the WABAC comes into play when the tots take it for a spin, forcing Peabody to rush to their rescue.
Getting down to personals, we also see the left brain-heavy Peabody struggle with being father Sherman deserves. The bulk of the emotional marks are hit as we learn just how much Peabody cares for Sherman, and just how hard it has been to accept that his only family is growing up and changing.
DreamWorks
But more successful than the new is the film's handling of the old — the material that Peabody and Sherman purists will adore. They travel back in time via the WABAC Machine to Ancient Egypt, the Renaissance, and the Trojan War, and 18th Century France, explaining the cultural backdrop and historical significance of the settings and characters they happen upon, all with that irreverent (but no longer racist) flare that the old cartoons enjoyed. And oh... the puns.
Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman is a f**king treasure trove of some of the most amazingly bad puns in recent cinema. This effort alone will leave you in awe.
The film does unravel in its final act, bringing the science-fiction of time travel a little too close to the forefront and dropping the ball on a good deal of its emotional groundwork. What seemed to be substantial building blocks do not pay off in the way we might, as scholars of animated family cinema, have anticipated, leaving the movie with an unfinished feeling.
But all in all, it's a bright, compassionate, reasonably educational, and occasionally funny if not altogether worthy tribute to an old favorite. And since we don't have our own WABAC machine to return to a time of regularly scheduled Peabody and Sherman cartoons, this will do okay for now.
If nothing else, it's worth your time for the puns.
3/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

After Dark Films
It seems a bit odd to take on a movie review of Courtney Solomon's Getaway, as only in the loosest terms is Getaway actually a movie. We begin without questions — other than a vague and frustrating "What the hell is going on?" — and end without answers, watching Ethan Hawke drive his car into things (and people) for the hour and a half in between. We learn very little along the way, probed to engage in the mystery of the journey. But we don't, because there's no reason to.
There's not a single reason to wonder about any of the things that happen to Hawke's former racecar driver/reformed criminal — forced to carry out a series of felonious commands by a mysterious stranger who is holding his wife hostage — because there doesn't seem to be a single ounce of thought poured into him beyond what he see. We learn, via exposition delivered by him to gun-toting computer whiz Selena Gomez, that he "did some bad things" before meeting the love of his life and deciding to put that all behind him. Then, we stop learning. We stop thinking. We start crashing into police cars and Christmas trees and power plants.
Why is Selena Gomez along for the ride? Well, the beginnings of her involvement are defensible: Hawke is carrying out his slew of vehicular crimes in a stolen car. It's her car. And she's on a rampage to get it back. But unaware of what she's getting herself into, Gomez confronts an idling Hawke with a gun, is yanked into the automobile, and forced to sit shotgun while the rest of the driver's "assignments" are carried out. But her willingness to stick by Hawke after hearing his story is ludicrous. Their immediate bickering falls closer to catty sexual tension than it does to genuine derision and fear (you know, the sort of feelings you'd have for someone who held you up or forced you into accessorizing a buffet of life-threatening crimes).
After Dark Films
The "gradual" reversal of their relationship is treated like something we should root for. But with so little meat packed into either character, the interwoven scenes of Hawke and Gomez warming up to each other and becoming a team in the quest to save the former's wife serve more than anything else as a breather from all the grotesque, impatient, deliberately unappealing scenes of city wreckage.
And as far as consolidating the mystery, the film isn't interested in that either, as evidenced by its final moments. Instead of pressing focus on the answers to whatever questions we may have, the movie's ultimate reveal is so weak, unsubstantial, and entirely disconnected to the story entirely, that it seems almost offensive to whatever semblance of a film might exist here to go out on this note. Offensive to the idea of film and story in general, as a matter of fact. But Getaway isn't concerned with these notions. Not with story, character, logic, or humanity. It just wants to show us a bunch of car crashes and explosions. So you'd think it might have at least made those look a little better.
1/5
More Reviews:'The Hunt' Is Frustrating and Fantastic'You're Next' Amuses and Occasionally Scares'Short Term 12' Is Real and Miraculous
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//
From Our Partners:40 Most Revealing See-Through Red Carpet Looks (Vh1)15 Stars Share Secrets of their Sex Lives (Celebuzz)

What do Eddie Murphy, Bette Midler, Paul Newman, and Angie Dickinson have in common? No, they all haven't been at the same party at Brett Ratner's house. They are all winners of a Golden Globe. No, Murphy didn't get one for Pluto Nash he got one in 1982 as the New Star of the Year. The what now?
The Hollywood Foreign Press Agency started giving out the Most Promising Newcomer award in 1948, four years after their inception, to the person they thought was going to be hottest new thing to take Hollywood. The first winners were Richard Widmark and Lois Maxwell, people your grandparents might not even remember. From 1954 to 1965 the award was given out to three to four men and women who the European journalists thought were going to take the world by storm. In 1966 the award switched again and went to an actor and actress for a specific movie and, possibly because so many newcomers didn't show any promise, was renamed. The first winners were Robert Redford for Inside Daisy Clover (I'm sure he was!) and Elizabeth Hartman for A Patch of Blue.
Those first winners highlight exactly the problem with this specific category: more often than not the winners wound up being duds. Sure Robert Redford is one of the biggest stars in the world but Elizabeth Hartman? Let's look at 1969 Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey were given a pair of trophies for their portrayal of Romeo &amp; Juliet. Whiting retired from films by the mid-'70s and Hussey went on to star in some crappy horror films and then become a crazy agorophobic who had a hard time leaving the house. These are your New Stars of the Year, ladies in gentleman.
By 1983 the Globes were sick of giving this award to turkeys and gave out the final salutes in the category to Ben Kinglsey and Sandahl Bergman. All in all, the awards have a pretty lousy track record. Of the 59 actors and 58 actresses given the honor, I count only 17 actors (Richard Burton, Anthony Perkins, Paul Newman, James Garner, George Hamilton, Warren Beatty, Terence Stamp, Peter O'Tool, Omar Sharif, Albert Finney, Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, James Earl Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eddie Murphy, and Ben Kingsley) and 14 actresses (Shirley MacLaine, Natalie Wood, Jayne Mansfield, Sandra Dee, Angie Dickinson, Jane Fonda, Ann-Margret, Patty Duke, Mia Farrow, Tatum O'Neal, Jessica Walter, Diana Ross, Jessica Lange, and Bette Midler) who achieved any sort of lasting modicum of celebrity (gauged by, well, whether or not I know who the heck they are). That's a 28% and 24% success rate predicting the promisenessness of newcomers. You have better odds playing Scratch-a-Millions from your local lottery system.
I reached out to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for a comment on why the category was struck from the record and if they ever hope to bring it back. They didn't return my request for comment. They're probably still embarrassed about just how lousy their crystal ball is.
Follow Brian Moylan on Twitter @BrianJMoylan
[Photo Credit: Frank Edwards/Fotos International/Getty Images]
More:
2013 Golden Globes: 'Lincoln,' 'Argo' Lead Movie Nominations. See the Full List Here!
Fantasy Golden Globes: If ‘Mean Girls’ Determined the Seating Chart
From Our Partners:
Megan Fox’s 12 Hottest Moments (Moviefone)
Ryan Gosling’s ‘Airbrushed’ Abs: Plus 19 More Reasons We Love the Actor (Moviefone)

The agent designation: 007. You already know the name. The Bond franchise has been in existence for half a century, with Skyfall marking its twenty-third official entry. Not even the likes of Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger can boast sequels of that quantity. Why do we love James Bond so much? Is it his jet setting, womanizing lifestyle? Is it his ability to thwart even the most elaborate and well-crafted world domination schemes from a colorful rouges gallery of madmen? Whatever the case, with the next two films already in development, Bond shows no signs of slowing down.
The James Bond series has cast an overwhelming shadow over the landscape of film, particularly that of spy cinema. More particular still, American spy films have struggled to capture the same degree of phenomenal success as has been enjoyed by the Bond movies since the 1960s. While it is true that the various 007 films do not comprise the entirety of British spy cinema, it is without question the titan of the genre and therefore the paradigm by which the American counterparts must be judged. So how has America tried, and failed, to acquire this elusive cinematic target?
Comedic License
One of the earliest attempts for American films to capitalize on the James Bond trend, and indeed one of the first to yield any sort of franchise, were Bond parodies. In the late sixties, two separate American film series sprang up poking fun at England’s deadliest agent. The first starred James Coburn as Derek Flint, an agent of ZOWIE fighting the forces of evil in Our Man Flint and In Like Flint. At almost the same time, crooner Dean Martin starred as Matt Helm, a photographer/spy in a total of four film adventures including 1966’s The Silencers and Murder’s Row. Both of these series were takeoffs on the swinging, mod lifestyle that Bond was so often afforded by his occupation.
America has been monumentally prolific in the area of spy spoofs; rivaling and even possibly exceeding our output of more straight-laced fare. Movies like Hop Scotch and the movies based on the Get Smart television series eventually gave way to Spies Like Us, Top Secret, and the notably dreadful Leonard Part 6. The most interesting aspect of this is that the Austin Powers franchise, which netted three installments, riffs as much on the parodies of Bond as on Bond himself. It would seem we have long been of the mindset of “if you can’t beat ‘em, mock ‘em.”
Counter-Intelligence
James Bond is a loyal agent of Her Majesty’s government. This should be all rights limit his appeal to American audiences. But the writers, including Ian Fleming in the novels, were smart enough to design stories that placed the whole of the world in peril and not just England. However, Bond’s reverence toward his own country is one primary difference between Bond films and American spy movies. Where James is a willing instrument of his government, a vast majority of the spy films on this side of the pond illustrate a profound mistrust of our own government.
With Bond films, we are privy to the inner workings of MI-6, or at least the fictional version of MI-6 they had constructed. Our debonair lead, and therefore the audience, is hardly ever in the dark about even the most top-secret parameters of his missions. In the states, the heroes are often used and betrayed by shadowy factions of U.S. intelligence. This frightening cloak and dagger betrayal can be seen in the likes of Sidney Pollack’s Three Days of the Condor and more recent films like Spy Game, The Recruit, and even the Denzel Washington/Ryan Reynolds 2012 film Safe House.
While we could dissect the myriad historical headlines that may have influenced this movement in American spy films, the fact is that these movies don’t lend themselves well to sequels. Once the curtain is pulled back and either the villains are laid to waste or their ultimate scheme has gotten the better of our hero, there are few other places the story can go. Either result would not logically allow for that character to return to spy work so the overarching continuity would be completely absent. These films, by their very nature, can’t really latch on in the same way as did Bond.
The Impossible Task and The Bourne Exemplar
The two films that have managed their way around this problem are the two that have been the most successful, and in fact some of the only, non-comedy American spy franchises. In 1998, Brian De Palma adapted the television series Mission: Impossible into a film. Again, here we had a villain that was revealed to be an inside man, a former ally. However, the team dynamic added a new dimension to the proceedings and the action set pieces provided a nice counterbalance to the complex intrigue. That team dynamic would be somewhat lost in the next Mission: Impossible movie, but from then on it became more and more a staple of the series.
That team dynamic was divergent from the solitary hero that is Bond, however there were elements that made their way into the movie from the original TV series that play directly to Bond fans. The idea of the characters requiring their own theme song harkened back to Monty Norman’s fabulous signature Bond music. Again, this was not an invention of the movie, but a reflection of the days when America also used TV as a conduit for capitalizing on the Bond-inspired spy craze. The high-tech, and highly specialized gadgets used by the IMF team are also very reminiscent of the devices 007 uses to escape dire situation after dire situation.
A few years later, Universal produced a big screen version of the Jason Bourne character created by Robert Ludlum. Matt Damon’s amnesic CIA agent trying to reclaim his identity was enough of a twist on the concept of the treacherous government agency to enthrall audiences. The singular hero who was well skilled in the art of kicking ass found comfortable purchase in the hearts of those who idolized Bond. Plus, the Bourne series, like Bond, was drawing from a rich literary tradition. Also, like Mission: Impossible and the best of the 007 series, the Bourne movies often struck that perfect balance between captivating plot points and spectacular action sequences.
That last component may seem part and parcel with contemporary espionage actioners, but one of the most painful attempts to sell an “American Bond” to audiences was XXX starring Vin Diesel. Among its innumerable flaws, XXX was so singularly concerned with action sequences that the story was an appalling mess. This necessary balanced approach may also explain why The Bourne Legacy caused so much of a problem. It wasn’t the changing of the guard in the lead role from Damon to Renner, not playing the same character but certainly passing the torch, that caused the critical whiplash. We had become accustomed to that sort of changeover thanks to the Bond series and its seven different lead actors. But the story was so weak and the action scenes so poorly shot that it couldn’t possibly maintain the series’ energy.
Will we ever concoct the right formula to foster a spy series anywhere near as formidable as Bond? It’s hard to say. We’ve tried countless times to no avail, but the future of both the Bourne and Mission: Impossible franchises remains to be seen.
[Photo Credit: Sony Pictures/Paramount Pictures]
More:
12 of the James Bond Franchise's Most Unforgettable Deaths
Javier Bardem on His Quirky 'Skyfall' Villain: 'That's Me — Because I'm Insane Sometimes'
Idris Elba As James Bond: The Right Move for the 007 Franchise

Robert Zemeckis is a blockbuster director at heart. Action has never been an issue for the man behind Back to the Future. When he puts aside the high concept adventures for emotional human stories — think Forrest Gump or Cast Away — he still goes big. His latest Flight continues the trend revolving the story of one man's fight with alcoholism around a terrifying plane crash. Zemeckis expertly crafts his roaring centerpiece and while he finds an agile performer in Denzel Washington the hour-and-a-half of Flight after the shocking moment can't sustain the power. The "big" works. The intimate drowns.
Washington stars as Whip Whitaker a reckless airline pilot who balances his days flying jumbo jets with picking up women snorting lines of cocaine and drinking himself to sleep. Although drunk for the flight that will change his life forever that's not the reason the plane goes down — in fact it may be the reason he thinks up his savvy landing solution in the first place. Writer John Gatins follows Whitaker into the aftermath madness: an investigation of what really happened during the flight Whitaker's battle to cap his addictions and budding relationships that if nurtured could save his life.
Zemeckis tops his own plane crash in Cast Away with the heart-pounding tailspin sequence (if you've ever been scared of flying before Flight will push into phobia territory). In the few scenes after the literal destruction Washington is able to convey an equal amount of power in the moments of mental destruction. Whitaker is obviously crushed by the events the bottle silently calling for him in every down moment. Flight strives for that level of introspection throughout eventually pairing Washington with equally distraught junkie Nicole (Kelly Reilly). Their relationship is barely fleshed out with the script time and time again resorting to obvious over-the-top depictions of substance abuse (a la Nic Cage's Leaving Las Vegas) and the bickering that follows. Washington's Whitaker hits is lowest point early sitting there until the climax of the film.
Sharing screentime with the intimate tale is the surprisingly comical attempt by the pilot's airline union buddy (Bruce Greenwood) and the company lawyer (Don Cheadle) to get Whitaker into shape. Prepping him for inquisitions looking into evidence from the wreckage and calling upon Whitaker's dealer Harling (John Goodman) to jump start their "hero" when the time is right the two men do everything they can to keep any blame being placed upon Whitaker by the National Transportation Safety Board investigators. The thread doesn't feel relevant to Whitaker's plight and in turn feels like unnecessary baggage that pads the runtime.
Everything in Fight shoots for the skies — and on purpose. The music is constantly swelling the photography glossy and unnatural and rarely do we breach Washington's wild exterior for a sense of what Whitaker's really grappling with. For Zemeckis Flight is still a spectacle film with Washington's ability to emote as the magical special effect. Instead of using it sparingly he once again goes big. Too big.
="font-style:>

David Mitchell's novel Cloud Atlas consists of six stories set in various periods between 1850 and a time far into Earth's post-apocalyptic future. Each segment lives on its own the previous first person account picked up and read by a character in its successor creating connective tissue between each moment in time. The various stories remain intact for Tom Tykwer's (Run Lola Run) Lana Wachowski's and Andy Wachowski's (The Matrix) film adaptation which debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival. The massive change comes from the interweaving of the book's parts into one three-hour saga — a move that elevates the material and transforms Cloud Atlas in to a work of epic proportions.
Don't be turned off by the runtime — Cloud Atlas moves at lightning pace as it cuts back and forth between its various threads: an American notary sailing the Pacific; a budding musician tasked with transcribing the hummings of an accomplished 1930's composer; a '70s-era investigatory journalist who uncovers a nefarious plot tied to the local nuclear power plant; a book publisher in 2012 who goes on the run from gangsters only to be incarcerated in a nursing home; Sonmi~451 a clone in Neo Seoul who takes on the oppressive government that enslaves her; and a primitive human from the future who teams with one of the few remaining technologically-advanced Earthlings in order to survive. Dense but so was the unfamiliar world of The Matrix. Cloud Atlas has more moving parts than the Wachowskis' seminal sci-fi flick but with additional ambition to boot. Every second is a sight to behold.
The members of the directing trio are known for their visual prowess but Cloud Atlas is a movie about juxtaposition. The art of editing is normally a seamless one — unless someone is really into the craft the cutting of a film is rarely a post-viewing talking point — but Cloud Atlas turns the editor into one of the cast members an obvious player who ties the film together with brilliant cross-cutting and overlapping dialogue. Timothy Cavendish the elderly publisher could be musing on his need to escape and the film will wander to the events of Sonmi~451 or the tortured music apprentice Robert Frobisher also feeling the impulse to run. The details of each world seep into one another but the real joy comes from watching each carefully selected scene fall into place. You never feel lost in Cloud Atlas even when Tykwer and the Wachowskis have infused three action sequences — a gritty car chase in the '70s a kinetic chase through Neo Seoul and a foot race through the forests of future millennia — into one extended set piece. This is a unified film with distinct parts echoing the themes of human interconnectivity.
The biggest treat is watching Cloud Atlas' ensemble tackle the diverse array of characters sprinkled into the stories. No film in recent memory has afforded a cast this type of opportunity yet another form of juxtaposition that wows. Within a few seconds Tom Hanks will go from near-neanderthal to British gangster to wily 19th century doctor. Halle Berry Hugh Grant Jim Sturgess Jim Broadbent Ben Whishaw Hugo Weaving and Susan Sarandon play the same game taking on roles of different sexes races and the like. (Weaving as an evil nurse returning to his Priscilla Queen of the Desert cross-dressing roots is mind-blowing.) The cast's dedication to inhabiting their roles on every level helps us quickly understand the worlds. We know it's Halle Berry behind the fair skinned wife of the lunatic composer but she's never playing Halle Berry. Even when the actors are playing variations on themselves they're glowing with the film's overall epic feel. Jim Broadbent's wickedly funny modern segment a Tykwer creation that packs a particularly German sense of humor is on a smaller scale than the rest of the film but the actor never dials it down. Every story character and scene in Cloud Atlas commits to a style. That diversity keeps the swirling maelstrom of a movie in check.
Cloud Atlas poses big questions without losing track of its human element the characters at the heart of each story. A slower moment or two may have helped the Wachowskis' and Tykwer's film to hit a powerful emotional chord but the finished product still proves mainstream movies can ask questions while laying over explosive action scenes. This year there won't be a bigger movie in terms of scope in terms of ideas and in terms of heart than Cloud Atlas.
="font-style:>

Over the next few months, we’ll see new series soar, old series sour, and so much Jersey Shore madness, we’ll want to shower. Let’s face it: The Fall TV season is intimidating. With dozens of new and returning shows hitting our small screens, we know we have some big choices to make. So, to help you determine what to watch, we’re digging deep into the most notable series premiering this season. Where did each show leave off? Where is it headed? And who should you watch it with? Next up is ABC's campy new mystery show 666 Park Avenue. Hey, no one ever said New York city real estate was easy.
New Series: 666 Park Avenue
Premiere Date: Sept. 30, 2012
You’d Like It If…: You like its time slot predecessors, Once Upon a Time and Revenge. Seriously, ABC has done a great job with its Sunday night line-up. All three shows are undeniably campy, but they're also a glamourous, fun, harmless escape.
You’ll Hate It If…: You're Mormon. Also, if you're a TV snob that only digs shows created by the Vince Gilligan/Matt Weiner/David Milch set.
Soundbite: "You're only renting this life. Make the payment, or she isn't long for this world — and neither are you."
What to wear while watching it: Your best Alexander McQueen, if you can afford it.
Setting: A mysterious building called The Drake, located on Manhattan's notoriously posh Upper East Side. It's one of those shows, like Lost, where the setting is a character in itself. Also, it seems to feature a direct portal into hell.
Recommended Beverage Pairing: 666 Park immediately follows Revenge, the only show on television that essentially requires a glass of red wine to accompany viewing. So why stop the fun at 10 p.m.? Just keep sipping that Sauvignon, and all of the supernatural stuff might actually make sense.
Don't listen to: Anything Terry O'Quinn's character, Gavin, says. He either is or is working for the devil.
Famous Faces: Terry O'Quinn from Lost plays the rich bastard who owns the building, and Vanessa Williams is his luxury-loving wife. You also might recognize Dave Annable from Brothers and Sisters, and his on-screen lady Rachael Taylor from the short-lived Charlie's Angels reboot.
Hollywood Trend Watch: On-screen hedonism, and watching how "the other half" (or, the other 1 percent) lives is a delicious national pastime. Sit back and relax as ridiculously rich people get what's coming to them.
Character to Love: Williams and O'Quinn are a TV match made in heaven, though on this show they're representing the Lucifer set. Gavin and Olivia Doran are wicked fun, and we can't wait to see how they further manipulate the poor, damned tenants of their luxurious building.
Character to Hate: Louise Leonard, the bitchy photographer wife of Brian. These two represent the "C" couple on the series, and so far their antics are pretty boring. Though it is kind of funny that Louise reaches for her Blackberry immediately after sex.
Fashion Piece: The stunning Alexander McQueen gown that Olivia buys for Taylor's character, Jane.
What You're Most Like to Yell at the Screen: "You can get double your square footage for half the price in Brooklyn!"
High Point: Gavin deviously manipulates Annable's character, Henry, to the point where we're already worried about poor Henry's innocent soul.
Low Point: The hot, mysterious naked lady across the street bit is a little tired.
If You Love This Show, You'll Love...: Revenge! Seriously, if you aren't doing so already, just watch Revenge.
Follow Shaunna on Twitter @HWShaunna
[PHOTO CREDIT: ABC]
MORE:
TCA 2012: '666 Park Avenue' Promises To Make Horror-Lovers Proud
Comic-Con 2012: ‘666 Park Avenue’ Has Everything… Literally
ABC Debuts Trailers for 'Nashville' and More -- VIDEO